"X" is for Buddhists who do not accept rebirth after cessation of bodily functions and still believe a viable ethical system can be made

Hello, X, I have a serious question for you, and I would like your answer. I want to ask the question then elaborate on its implications. If rebirth after the cessation of bodily functions were not true for the average man, then how could you ethically argue against a Marquis de Sade or Max Stirner? Why not be an egotist and hedonist that does not care about the welfare of others if rebirth after the cessation of bodily functions was not true, ending the same for everyone. Couldn’t I just dismiss someone’s pains and sufferings on account of the “liberty of the people is not my liberty”?

In the past, Ch’an Buddhism tended to be negative consequentialist because it encouraged practitioners to disentangle and detach themselves from karmic residues in the storehouse consciousness (alayavijnana) so that it may be purified: by being “purified”, presumably in deep samadhi or satori, the storehouse consciousness no longer leaves seeds (bija) to cause the formation of new volitional formations (sankhara), no longer bridging two existences; thus, it being purified ends in perpetual parinirvana, the Tathagata-garbha. All of this is taken from the Lankavatara Sutra, which Bodhidharma handed to Hui-ko while calling it the “essence of Zen”. If the pure and empty form of death meets both the murderer and practitioner alike, then what’s the point of valuing compassion? Why not just be a moral nihilist and egotist if the same fate befalls us all?

This is a serious question, and I request you reflect on it prior to answering me. If the karmic seeds of this life have no greater significance at the approach of the pure and empty form of death, then what is it all for? Aren’t we all technically “”enlightened”” after cessation of bodily functions? Why practice the Dhamma single-mindedly when it is all for naught? What’s the point of compassion if it’s all for naught?

Ultimately, I feel as if you are using a flawed rhetoric mixed with contemporary reductive physicalist biases to push for an anti-intellectual interpretation of Buddhism that conforms to adharmic modernized biases. Much of your conclusions on what is or isn’t proper ethic conduct are furthermore inconsistent with your bleak metaphysical views wherein everyone meets the same fate. If anything, you should read some pessimistic fiction like Emil Cioran and take the red pill of antinatalism given your interpretation. I take things to their logical limits, and I simply do not see your Buddhist ethical system as legitimate without rebirth. *gassho*

macdougdoug wrote:When the Marquis de Sade dies, is he reborn in a new body?

"The consciousness in the new person is neither identical nor entirely different from that in the deceased but the two form a causal continuum or stream."

He has accrued negative karma and will most likely be reborn in narakas.

"A Naraka differs from the hell of Christianity in two respects: firstly, beings are not sent to Naraka as the result of a divine judgment and punishment; secondly, the length of a being's stay in a Naraka is not eternal, though it is usually very long. A being is born into a Naraka as a direct result of his or her accumulated actions (karma) and resides there for a finite period of time until that karma has achieved its full result.[2] After his or her karma is used up, he or she will be reborn in one of the higher worlds as the result of karma that had not yet ripened."

It is both meant to be taken as literal and metaphorical. It is literal in the sense a negative rebirth does happen and there is no reprieve of a "void"; metaphorical in the sense we cannot entirely describe in with absolute precision.

Also, to further reinforce the last post:"Mahayana Buddhism accepted the cosmology as above.[23][24] But they believe there are pure land worlds where buddhas and bodhisattvas teach sentient beings in human forms.[25] A cosmology with some difference is further explained in the Worlds, chapter 5 of Avatamsaka Sutra."

Samsaric Spiral wrote:If the pure and empty form of death meets both the murderer and practitioner alike, then what’s the point of valuing compassion? Why not just be a moral nihilist and egotist if the same fate befalls us all?

Huh? Define / explain terms. please.

"Pure and empty form of death"? Say WHAT?

"Meets both the murderer and practitioner alike...". Say WHAT?

Is English your first language, by the way? I sense not. No worries. But, give a little help, if you can, eh? TNX,

desert_woodworker wrote:See the Tathagathagarba-theory as expounded in Mind-Only, or Vijnaptimatara Buddhism. There, "what reincarnates" makes sense, because great practitioners made it make sense (in writing it down).

There wasn't a single Buddhist text or practitioner prior to the 20th century that didn't believe in rebirth after the cessation of bodily functions.

That's metaphorical for "brain shutting down and something akin to dreamless sleep occurs for eternity".

"Meets both the murderer and practitioner alike...". Say WHAT?

There is no distinguishing factor between the murderer and practitioner if you think the end result occurs for both irrespective of karma.

Is English your first language, by the way? I sense not. No worries. But, give a little help, if you can, eh? TNX,

It's very easy to understand what is being said.

What people like Stephen Batchelor do is take Buddhist metaphysics and eliminate everything that doesn't conform to modern physicalist biases. By doing this, they introduce implications that have unsavoury ethical problems. Like I've said, "There wasn't a single Buddhist text or practitioner prior to the 20th century that didn't believe in rebirth after the cessation of bodily functions." There's a reason for that, and it's what gives impetus for Buddhist practice in the first place.

desert_woodworker wrote:But Yogacara has had the bottom-line on this since back-when, instead. Kudos!!

Yogacara argued for rebirth too. The Lankavatara Sutra's description of storehouse consciousness being involved in rebirth is taken directly from Yogacara rhetoric:

Ch’an Buddhism... encouraged practitioners to disentangle and detach themselves from karmic residues in the storehouse consciousness (alayavijnana) so that it may be purified: by being “purified”, presumably in deep samadhi or satori, the storehouse consciousness no longer leaves seeds (bija) to cause the formation of new volitional formations (sankhara), no longer bridging two existences; thus it being purified ends in perpetual parinirvana, the Tathagata-garbha. All of this is taken from the Lankavatara Sutra, which Bodhidharma handed to Hui-ko while calling it the “essence of Zen”.

There is no reason to practice Buddhism without accepting rebirth after the cessation of bodily functions, except for health purposes and positive neuroplasticity, and no amount of your ridiculous posturing is going to elude that.

Is English your first language, by the way?

For real Buddhist practitioners, the Dharma is supposed to be the first language, but it has been distilled and commodified to the point where it has become a bigger mess than Derrida and Deleuze's postmodern degeneracy.

Indeed, Yogacara includes reincarnation, which is why I bring it in. But, NOTE what it is that the proponents claim resurrects.

Joe wrote:Is English your first language, by the way?

For real Buddhist practitioners, the Dharma is supposed to be the first language, but it has been distilled and commodified to the point where it's become a bigger mess than Derrida and Deleuze's postmodern degeneracy.

desert_woodworker wrote:Indeed, Yogacara includes reincarnation, which is why I bring it in. But, NOTE what it is that the proponents claim resurrects.

Could you be anymore vague and unclear? Please elaborate.

Do you mean to say that the Original Face or Dharmakaya is already our true nature and continues its ebb and flow regardless of the illusion of a self-existent "I"? There is still no reason to practice then because everything is "perfect". I'm pretty sure Yogacara didn't originally convey this.

Regardless of the storehouse consciousness having a strict identity with the Tathagata-garbha, this doesn't mean the three poisons (i.e., "greed, hatred, and delusion") are perfect and immaculate as they are. This would make all ethics moot and an extreme monism that seems like adharma to me.

Thus-gone wrote:Rebirth is fundamental to the Buddhist tradition (Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana alike) - are you questioning this, desert_woodworker? If so, then you are gravely mistaken.

Of course, that doesn't mean you need to believe in it or that it's necessary for practicing or anything crazy like that - which some people do mistakenly assert.

Let me make it clear: I never implied believing in rebirth after cessation of bodily functions is necessary for Buddhist practice. Rather, it is necessary to give an impetus for the practice of Buddhism beyond mere health or social concerns. The ethics of Buddhism also revolves around rebirth.

In other words, the ethics gets its teleological thrust from the possibility of no longer being reborn into a life marked by dukkha.

Note, I realize rebirth isn't exclusive to "after death", but it is always occurring (i.e., everything simultaneously arises and perishes seamlessly each moment). Both Pali and Mahayana cannon put emphasis on this during many occasions.

If rebirth after dying is mere fantasy, then I see no reason to be involved in this tradition. Time can be more productively spent on making more money and exercising. Shikantaza, while having positive health benefits, becomes more of a side-hobby then.

desert_woodworker wrote:I take it that's a "nope".

Desert_woodworker, the issue isn't that I don't speak English, when in fact I speak far more articulately than you, but the issue is you hide behind a veil of posturing to avoid these obvious dilemmas that need to be fleshed out. Quit with your whimsical bullshit.

...the issue is not that I do not speak English, when in fact I speak better than you, but the issue is you hide behind a veil of posturing the avoid these obvious dilemmas that need to be fleshed out.